Paul Ryan's Libya Response

Wow. I wonder what Ryan had to say after 3,000 people died on US SOIL during the last administration's watch?

“It is very important that a president speak with a singular voice representing our principles and our values,” Ryan said.

“If you show weakness, if you show moral equivocation, then foreign policy adventerusim among our adversaries will increase.” He promised that a Romney administration would lead with “peace through strength”.

"We do not want a world climate where our adversaires are so tempted to test us and our allies our worried about trusting us," he added. "And that is unfortunately the path we are on right now and I really worry about that."

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore," Joan McCarter, an editor at the Daily Kos website

I know what joe biden said about 911 attack the other day: "And its an honor, a genuine honor to be back here today but like all of the families, we wish we weren't here. We wish we didn't have to be here. We wish we didn't have to commemorate any of this." Biden said. "It is a bittersweet moment for the entire nation, for all of the country, particularly for those family members gathered here today."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore," Joan McCarter, an editor at the Daily Kos website

And Paul Ryan is right. - "We do not want a world climate where our adversaires are so tempted to test us and our allies our worried about trusting us," he added. "And that is unfortunately the path we are on right now and I really worry about that." - He is saying obama is weak and and our adversaries are trying to test us. We need to be stronger and fight when we have to. obama wants USA to match the muslum 3rd world countries. I cant wait til b o is out of office. I dont really care for Mittens either but he cant do any worse, can he?

I see no issue with Ryan's statement because it is true. The militants respect only one thing and that is military power and the ability of their enemies to strike back.

In a way it is the same as the primitive instinct in every living animal and it's called, "fight or flight".

A cat for instance will hunt any animal smaller and that it can overpower. But a dog will send it scattering for safety. By the same token, that same dog chasing the cat, will hightail it if encountered with an aggressive animal that appears threatening. A porcupine may be smaller, but it has a great defensive mechanism.

You would think that as much as Obama and Jimmy Carter have in common, Obama would learn something from Jimmy. I would say if not for Jimmy (just my opinion here) and his total ineptitude in dealing with Iran, we wouldn't be in this position in the middle east. Johnson was the worst president of my life time, followed by the not so useful idiot Jimmy Carter, but it looks like that will change soon. At least Jimmy seemed to have a good heart, not so with the arrogant failure we have now.

We weren't in the middle of a presidential campaign when 9/11 happened MR. And, as was already said here, Ryan's comments were spot on.

What we are witnessing is the result of the "Arab Spring" that Obama was pushing. Now we have the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power, Sharia law expanding in areas, and more anti-Israel powers emerging.
Basically, it;s what happens when you have a lack of leadership in the Oval Office in America.

These riots were a thought out plan for the anniversary of 9/11. They had nothing to do with some stupid movie being put out here in the US.
The Obama administration all look like apologetic fools, and that makes us look weak.
Terrorist love a weak America. If we have 4 more years of Obama, we may very well see a strike on Israel.
What is taking place today in the Arab world may very well be telling us the future alignment of what WWIII will look like.

For the sake of our country - heck, for the sake of the World, Obama can't leave fast enough.

So it is ok for Ryan to tell the world the US is weak, just because it's an election year CG?

Are you people forgetting that ACTUAL 9-11 that happened HERE? When you know who was in charge? Did we really look weak to the world back then? Is that why we were attacked? From what you guys are saying... YES.
Obama and Jimmy sure do have a lot in common, Willy. Like the US wasn't attacks by terrorists on their watch.

ST- I don't think "mittens" made anyone more confident about his foreign policy skills this week. In fact, I think a lot of people who are like you (who don't really care for him- but would prefer him over Obama) might have changed their minds now that he has PROVEN he doesn't care about the facts.

By the way guys... how exactly are we going to have "peace through strength"? Sounds like more military funding. Gee, wonder where that money is going to come from? Is Romney going to pull it out of one of his offshore accounts?

Carter may have been the first president to mix it up with the middle east when he became involved with Israel and Egypt in the Camp David Accord as well as other nations like Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia in the 1970s. That was when the US became DIRECTLY involved in the middle east. I remember thinking as I watched the news of the event that this may the beginning of a lot of trouble for the US and Carter is putting us in the middle of an ancient conflict thousands of years old.

But this was not the first threat for us. I recall an army ROTC professor at Clemson in 1957 discussing the middle east, and he made a possibly prophetic prediction by saying, " If WW III ever occurs, it will be because of the discord among the middle east nations." Let's hope it never occurs.

Which facts are there that says Romney has no foreign policy skills? Obama had zilch when he started and is still questionable. I suspect Hilliary as Secretary of State has better experience than O. ever did and he relies on her.

Sure it would be nice if our troops could come home with no conflicts anywhere. But our experience has taught us that by having troops scattered around in potential trouble spots that we can deter many events and can respond more quickly to them when they occur. It's not a matter of IF a threat will occur, but WHEN one will occur.

For instance, there should have been NO civilians in Libya or an embassy there in that dangerous part of the world. It is foolish to think the provisional government can guarantee safety when the Gaddafi supporters are still around with military weapons.

And another questions is, why weren't those 50 marines in the embassy protecting the civilians BEFORE the event. Obama has recently ordered 50 marines there AFTER the tragedy. More of that leading from behind from an inexperienced and naive president.

Sometimes young people reach an age when they think they know it all. but are amazed as they grow older how smart their parents were.. They go to school and learn all about the new technologies and then gloat at older folks for being behind the times.

Bur remember it is those older folks that invented the new technologies that you use and learned about from professors older than you. Nuclear energy, satellites, man on the moon, Theory of Relativity, Quantum Physics, String Theory, antibiotics, heart transplants, DNA and the list is really long.

What has your generation done for the good of the world? It's becoming your time to start driving the car instead of sitting in the back seat licking lollipops.

MR and justsayin are (no surprise) falling for the liberal media attack on Romney.
We had an American Embassy apologize for and condemned an American for exercising his freedom of speech rights, in his own country.
But the press wants to talk about Romney.
Obama was a big supporter of the Arab Spring and anyone with half a brain knew what was going to happen with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining control. Now we are watching the undoing of decades of American foreign policy in that region.
But the press wants to talk about Romney.
Both Obama and Hillary make fools of themselves by suggesting the riots / killing were due to a movie being produced on the Internet, when the facts are these riots were planned far ahead and purposely took place on the anniversary of Sept, 11.
Yet our liberal media dismisses all of these things (and more)and instead wants to talk about Romney to try and make this all about him.
Disgusting.

Oh, and to top it off, there was a hidden microphone in the press room that captured "journalist" coordinating / getting together to figure out a way to try and make Romney look bad by asking certain questions - questions that were brought forth by the White House and (of course) were picked up by the left-wing press in an effort to help Obama and try and hurt Romney.

To answer you directly MR, are you suggesting a candidate running for President of the United States should not be allowed to discuss foreign policy?
You do realize how stupid that sounds, right?
I suppose the moderators of the debates shouldn't be allowed to ask questions regarding foreign policy either.
Obama is President, and he should have the only word on foreign policy right now - right?
WOW....
Romney is running for President of the United States, which includes Commander in Chief. He has EVERY right to discuss foreign policy (or anything else), suggest what he thinks the President is doing wrong, and explain how his policies would be different.
You need to get a grip girl, and quit watching the left-wing Obama sympathisers who are carrying his water.

Jimmy Carter was weak and terrorists took American
hostages and held them for over 440 days. Carter ordered a rescue attempt that turned into a debacle. Reagan was elected and the hostages were set free.
Peace through strength.
Obama is weak and the Muslim Brotherhood takes power. Both Carter and Obama wanted to try and "play nice" with radical Muslims, as if they would leave us alone.
That strategy NEVER works, and you have to be a complete idiot to think otherwise.
Peace through strength is all these radicals understand MR. Where will we get the money? Well, we can start by not gutting military funding like what is scheduled to take place. We can also get plenty of money by dismantling Obamacare.
"Free" birth control isn't going to be much good when we are being bombed by terrorists MR.
Some folks REALLY need to wake up and get their priorities straight.

BTW........funny how you want to blame Bush for 9/11 after only 8 months in office, but you don't want to blame Obama for the economy after 4 years of failed policies.
Priceless.

When are we going to realize these people are evil and wont stop until our country is gone!

This country is going to crumble and I fear another 4 years of Obama. The Democrats will stand up for him no matter what he does, they are blinded. They didn't even notice that he attended a racist church for years and still elected him. Duhhh...
But let's worry about Romney's taxes. C'mon. They will always deflect the blame and try to put the spotlight on someone else rather than saying " I screwed up".

......And as RH just proved, the Press STILL wants to talk about Romney.
Amazing.

RH- On Morning Joe, McCain waived off the discussion over Romney's timing (which the Press can't seem to get enough of) as a side show by the Media. He went on to say "The fact is, the US in the Middle East is weak. We are seen as withdrawing and we are paying a price for that weakness, whether it be the unraveling in Iraq, the tragedy in Syria, the tension with Israel, the Afghanistan situation unraveling. There is a lack of leadership, and that's what I would be talking about" (if he were Romney).
So in a way, you're right. Romney CAN learn something from McCain.
He should continue to expose the lack of leadership Obama has expressed since the day he took the job.
What an empty suit.

It has come out that Obama doesn't attend the majority of his intel briefings. In fact, the day after our Ambassador was killed, he skipped that days intel briefing to go to a fundraiser instead.
THE DAY AFTER OUR AMBASSADOR WAS KILLED the President decides to skip his Intelligence briefing to go to a fundraiser instead.....but the Press still wants to try and make this about Romney.
Is the President really THAT stupid? How Presidential.
Apparently, the Press really is THAT stupid.
Well, stupid and corrupt.

Lets start there- Show me the statement where the American Embassy "apologized".

Next- The (ooooohhhhh) big conspiracy with the reporters discussing what questions to ask Romney. I guess you weren't aware of this, but journalists do it all the time. They all agree to ask a certain question or questions that everyone wants the answer to. They work together to make sure specific questions get asked- regardless of who asks them.

Finally- When did I say Romney can't answer questions on foreign policy CG? He can discuss all he wants. But instead, Romney & Ryan have chosen to tell the world that they do not agree with the President, and that we have a divided country. So much for Peace through Strength.

Everyone that watches the news, even in foreign countries is aware that this nation has different opinions and as a free society, have the right to express them.

Why should Obama and the libs expect support of policies that they disagree? Lord knows, Bush had his battles with the Democrats.

Linked is a site that has collected photos of the anti war demonstrations against Bush. Notice how "peaceful" and "respectful" they are with their signs. We don't see any conservatives yelling, screaming and carrying signs like that against Obama.

Seriously MR, you haven't heard any of the apologies from this administration yet? You haven't heard the apologies from the Embassy??
Have you ever heard of Google? Have you ever heard of a news source other than NBC??

As far as being a "divided country".....what do you think Obama has been trying to do to this country since becoming President? Bring us all together??
You seriously need a wake up call girl.

And yes, "reporters" may discuss things together from time to time, like what they may say/ask the President. But the coordination involved in what they are going to ask a REPUBLICAN is quite different than the off the cuff discussions they may or may not have prior to a liberal getting ready for a news conference.
The coordinated effort was to purposely make Romney look as bad as they could. To dismiss that (as you seem to be doing) is to totally dismiss the truth / reality.
But that doesn't surprise me in the least with you.

The Press is in the pocket of Barack Obama and will do everything they can to get him re-elected. If you don't see that, then you are blind. On the other hand, if you see that are simply aren't admitting it, then you aren't worth my attention.

"We had an American Embassy apologize for and condemned an American for exercising his freedom of speech rights, in his own country."
Once again-Show me the statement where the American Embassy "apologized".
(Let me guess. You heard that on Fox.)

As for being divisive.... Did the Democrats bash Bush's foreign policy skills on 9-11? Did they say Bush has made our country weak in the eyes of terrorists before the dust settled?
Nope. 9-11 7:30pm...."Dozens of members of Congress from both parties stood side by side on the East Front of the Capitol and declared they would stand united behind President Bush… After their leaders spoke, the lawmakers unexpectedly punctuated their unity by bursting into a rendition of God Bless America. Many lawmakers hugged. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, was in tears."
Of course it wasn't all cordial..."But even then there was some doubting - conservative Congressmen Bob Barr of Georgia said there was a "tremendous question about why we didn't have some warning."

And of course, someone had to take the blame..."Less than 12 hours after the attacks began, the first articles blaming Clinton for 9/11 appear on the conservative websites WorldNetDaily and Accuracy in Media."

I love how every Democrat says "you must have heard it on fox". Fox is the only non-liberal media source so they are intimidated by them as they will speak against Obama when they need to and not kiss his butt. I think Fox is refreshing and show both sides. I however do not limit my knowledge to one media source.
Obama is trying to divide and take this country down as we know it. Make everyone rely on the government. Make rich successful people look evil. His bias media also loves to continue the race war.
Racist to ask for an ID to vote? Come on! Racist to require drug screenings to collect welfare? Come on!
This man needs to go, it goes beyond Democrat /Republican battles. I fear for my country if he gets reelected.

I love how every Democrat says "you must have heard it on fox". Fox is the only non-liberal media source so they are intimidated by them as they will speak against Obama when they need to and not kiss his butt. I think Fox is refreshing and show both sides. I however do not limit my knowledge to one media source.
Obama is trying to divide and take this country down as we know it. Make everyone rely on the government. Make rich successful people look evil. His bias media also loves to continue the race war.
Racist to ask for an ID to vote? Come on! Racist to require drug screenings to collect welfare? Come on!
This man needs to go, it goes beyond Democrat /Republican battles. I fear for my country if he gets reelected.

Voter photo ID has become a rallying cry for libs. I read an article the other day where it suggested that if libs were so concerned about "those millions " without one, that they volunteer to offer rides and pay the 5 buck fee to help out. Those millions must be really suffering when they don't have one to write or cash checks, use credit cards, etc. But the libs wouldn't volunteer or take their personal time; they would want a government program.

MR- "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo CONDEMNS THE CONTINUING EFFORTS BY MISGUIDED INDIVIDUALS TO HURT THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS OF MUSLIMS."
That is an apology to Muslims that the people in the United States have a first Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Missy.
Do I really need to spell things out for you?

This administration has been on a apology tour since Obama took office. That is his "foreign policy".......play nice with Muslims, apologize for America's past, and support the "Arab Spring" and the new leadership - the Muslim Brotherhood.
So, how has that worked out for us MR?
Liberals NEVER learn from history.

There are even several things going on behind the scenes to kiss Muslim butt and trample on our rights.
In December, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton met behind closed doors in Washington with OIC officials to hammer out "mechanisms" for enforcing a UN RESOLUTION that the Obama administration SIGNED to "fight Islamophobia in America and other Western nations".
The 3-day session was closed to the public.

America came together after 9-11 for a good reason MR. But it didn't take long for democrat politicians to start bashing Bush.
Big difference though between the events leading up to 9-11 and the events that took place (and are still taking place today) in Muslim countries. Sept. 11 wasn't the result of Bush's foreign policy MR, so that's why it took awhile for dems to criticise. Where, what we are witnessing today is a direct result of Obama's foreign policy (and his weakness as a leader), thus the reason Romney is (and SHOULD) be criticising him and spelling out their differences.

Oh, and the reason people started being critical of Clinton after 9-11 was because he was basically offered Osama Bin Laden on several different occasions and never really pursued any of them.
Now, would the death of Bin Laden under a Clinton Administration have prevented 9-11 to happen?
Nobody knows.
But I noticed that you failed to mention that during your critism of Bush and 9-11 being "his fault".

It is indeed an apology RH.
In fact, if you Google American Embassy "apologizes", this event comes up dozens of times on all sorts of news sources - so even the majority of news media agrees it was an apology.
I guess I need to spell things out for you too.

BTW, when was Romney "for" the film?
He said he thought it was a "bad idea", but he acknowledged people's Constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression.
Something the Embassy failed to mention when they were apologizing (I'm sorry....."condemning") our first Amendment right.

Clinton was at the beginning of the Monica affair when he ordered some cruise missiles at some terrorist camps, hoping to get Osama, but missed. That was the extent of his actions after the first WTC bombing.

"Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog” strategy. Some of Clinton’s allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton’s decision."

We can only speculate about whether more aggressive action against the terrorists as Bush did would have stopped the second attack on 9/11. My view is that the death of 3000 people could be blamed on Clinton, who watched poll numbers more than threats.

Yep, lobbing a few cruise missiles was exactly the "blow" Clinton was thinking of at that time heron.
The blow he was thinking about was proven on Monica's dress.

Strange how the democrats have no problem trotting out men like Clinton (not to mention a tribute to Kennedy) at the Convention who have been accused of sexual harassment, rape, etc and were proven womanizers, and then claim they are for "women's rights" and are against this so called "war on women".
Apparently hypocrisy is NOT in the democrats dictionary.

Well, I guess if Google says it's an apology, it must be. LOL! The only reason Google hits on "apology" and "Libya" is because Romney opened his fat mouth before the facts came out, and his comments made headlines.
An apology is "Im sorry" "I apologize" "I was wrong".... Not a condemnation.

BTW- Was listening to Fox & Friends this morning in the car and even THEY said the rioting was about the movie. Geeze. Took um long enough.

Heron- So Clinton is to blame for 9-11? Well, maybe you have a point. Had he left the office in a more dignified manner, we may have elected a Democrat to follow him. And the terrorists wouldn't have had any reason to go after us because Jr. wouldn't have been in office.

My point is that Clinton was negligent in not recognizing the threat and not doing anything about it. He was more proactive about Kosovo, so he may have been more proactive if the Monica thingie had not been distracting him. But his liberal base is antiwar for ANY reason and he was criticized by them even for the Kosovo incident.

As for the movie, it has been around since June and it very well be the trigger that Al Qaeda is using to incite the riots. But they would have found another excuse to use around the 9/11 anniversary. Gaddafi died on October 20, but that is close enough for government work in Libya.

Besides, most of the Muslim nations have government controlled TV and internet service. If it were objectionable, just block it.

Google is a SEARCH ENGINE MR. Google doesn't "say" anything, it tells you what IS BEING SAID. Most of the stories that list the action as an apology don't even mention Romney's name, so his comments had nothing to do with determining the definition of what took place.
If we are condemning our first Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, then we are basically apologizing for the fact that we have those rights.

I was also listening to Fox this morning and they were talking about the riots that are taking place today and what is being pushed by the leader of Hezbollah - NOT the planned attack of the Embassy in Libya and the killing of our Ambassador. Even the Libyan President and their intelligence sources have said that it was a planned attack that was to purposely take place on 9-11 and had nothing to do with a movie.
Now, the Obama administration is going around telling people it was ALL about the movie and that it was just a "coincidence" that it happened on 9-11.
It's amazing how stupid liberals think Americans are.

Now, this "new" or continued violence that is being pushed by leaders of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah is supposedly over this movie, but I think they are just using that as an excuse because the movie has been out for months. So why are they making a big deal over it now, all of a sudden? Because they see the unrest, they see a weak American president, and they see an opportunity, that's why. They will use anything as an excuse to stir Muslims up. Always have.
And have you even seen the movie? It is a patch-job with very poor editing and dubbed-in voices. In all honesty, I wouldn't even call it a movie.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out one day (that is, if we ever do) that there is more to this "movie", who made it, and WHY, then what is being told so far.

But, regardless of my thoughts/suspicions about the movie, the Obama administration and the left-wing media is purposely pushing this movie theory for one reason and one reason only....................because they don't want to blame our left-wing president for his lack of leadership and his failure of a weak foreign policy for the attacks.
It was also being said that the rioters were chanting "Hey Obama Obama, we are all Osama's!", but that has gone widely unreported by the Press too. Why? Because they know the Obama admin has been patting themselves on the back all during this campaign for killing Bin Laden and they don't want people to think THAT may be the reason for the attacks.
The Press in this country is so corrupt and in the tank for Obama / the Left, it's disgusting.

Oh, and what did Bush do in his 8 months as president to incite the 9-11 attack Missy? How would a democrat president have prevented the attacks?
Sometimes it just seems you talk out your arse girl.

Do you think they planned the attack in 8 short months, or was the planning happening while Clinton was still in office? Do you recall the FIRST attack on the WTC - happened under Clinton? Why didn't he (a democrat) prevent that from happening? If you say terrorists have no "reason" to attack us while a democrat is in office, then what were the "reasons" for going after us while Clinton was president?? What were their "reasons" for taking 50+ hostages and holding them for over 440 days while Carter (a democrat) was president?
The REASON they don't like us MR, has nothing to do with which party is in the Oval Office. They don't like us because of our freedoms and way of life. PERIOD.
For some reason, you ignorant liberals have never been able to figure that out.

America needs to be a leader in this World. We need a strong military and a strong, influential foreign policy which includes sticking up for our allies.
Barack Obama wants NONE of these things and his foreign policy has been a disaster.

Funny how the Press around the World "gets this", but the American media does not.
Sad that the rest of the World gets the facts but our very own media lies to us every day.
Amazing to watch our corrupt, biased Press cover the ass of a liberal politician and his administration.

Of course, they did leave out 2 important reasons why they suggest she was lying, but knowing what those reasons are and that they would make Obama look even worse than having a Ambassador lie for him, what do you expect.

If we have a strong military MR, then they will not "destroy" us.
People like this (radicals) only respect strength. They pray on weakness. If they hit you, you hit them harder - you don't apologize to them.
Today, thanks to Obama, we are no longer feared or respected by our enemies, and we are no longer counted on by many of our allies.

But you're right.....why spend money on being "strong", having superior intelligence capabilities, and a strong military when we can use that money on free birth control.
What was I thinking?? Where are my priorities???
Forgive me MR. You and Obama are right.
At least a weak America will go down in defeat while they're getting laid.
And what's more important than THAT.

The annual base defense budget increased from $295B in FY2000 to $549B by FY2011, an 86% increase, excluding supplemental funding directly attributed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and certain other expenses related to the "War on Terror." On February 1, 2010, President Barack Obama sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011. The budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $549 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $159 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fiscal 2011 base budget request represents an increase of $18 billion over the $531 billion enacted for fiscal 2010. This is an increase of 3.4 percent, or 1.8 percent real growth after adjusting for inflation.

We don't need modern politics or even modern history to know that military strength is the one determining factor in saving and maintaining a civilization or nation. Ancient history will show us that in every downfall of a nation or civilization, they had the weaker defense and were overtaken by a mightier military force.

It's not the only factor, because the other reason for a fall is the lack of unity among its citizens to remain patriotic. To survive, the citizens must support its government and the government must remain responsive to its citizens.

Of course, he didn't include the $500 billion dollar cut in defense spending that will automatically kick in due to last years failure of the debt deal. So when you include that, we have a $TRILLION dollar cut in our defense budget coming.
Yeah.........Obama is who we want to vote for if we want a strong national defense.
NOT.

But hey, Sandra Fluke and her friends will be happy!
.....But probably not as happy as Al Qaeda.

During that same time frame (since the year 2000), Anti poverty spending has increased 89% - and we have more people in poverty today than ever before.
And spending on Education has gone up a whopping 219% since the year 2000, yet our kids aren't any smarter, and our drop out rate isn't any better.
So I would say the 82% increase in the cost to DEFEND OUR COUNTRY isn't asking too much.

How much will it take to keep America safe MR?
As much as it takes.

Keeping America / Americans safe is the NUMBER ONE job of our federal government. It's in the Constitution.
On the other hand, government run health care and MANY other "programs" that we have are NOT in the Constitution and were never supposed to be a responsibility of our federal government.
So, if we have to take from other government programs to fund our defense budget, so be it.

It's called "priorities" MR.
Things like "free" birth control, taxpayer funded abortions, and funding "green" energy companies that go bankrupt will just have to wait.

It is our embassies that are being attacked. The government of the nation the embassy is in is supposed to provide protection, although a minimum of security can be within the compound.

Obama, or at least the state department received warning 3 days before the attack in Libya. Why weren't those people evacuated? That is negligence and the death of our ambassador and staff is because of negligence of this administration.

Even with the 50 marines sent there AFTER the incident, there is no way for them to defend it without support, like military aircraft. Would the provisional government have approved the use of our military hardware? No, and it would be risky for an operation like that anyway in the middle of a city and dangerous for our aircraft with the Gaddafi supporters still having military weapons.

BTW MR, yes, "tax decreases for the "rich" (which also includes small business owners) WILL help.

You libs love to make fun of tax cuts, and enjoy even more lying about them and claiming they are only for the "rich".
We've been down this road before MR and you always lose.
Why?
Because you don't have the facts on your side (as usual).

Romney is calling for across the board tax cuts - not just for the upper bracket.
He is also looking at closing many "loopholes" that you libs keep crying about, because you think the "rich" take better advantage of them than other people do.

Bush cut taxes across the board and revenue to the Treasury INCREASED.
When Reagan became President, the top tax bracket was 70%. When he left office, the top bracket was 28%.
During his 8 years as President revenue to the Treasury increased by nearly 30% and revenue DOUBLED between 1983 and 1989.
Tax cuts spur economic development and investment. This creates more tax payers and revenue goes up.

You libs just don't get it, and you never will.
You would rather play the class warfare game to try and brainwash voters with BS instead, in order to try and gain their vote.
You lying liberals are a piece of work.

JFK was the first to use tax cuts to help the economy. Ordinarily it works as it did with him, Reagan and Bush.

It hasn't worked as well with Obama because businesses are in an unfriendly economy. The ACA questions which are confusing causing some businesses of a hundred or more employees to pause. And the federal debt and deficit spending lead to an unstable environment for long term plans. The second downgrade of our credit rating since Obama moved in the WH is a negative factor in planning.

This economy will not improve until stability returns. Obama has shown he is overwhelmed and inexperienced and it will take R&R in the WH and a GOP congress like we had under Clinton and the first 6 years under Bush to create stability again.

Well, I guess we've all seen by now that the attack and killing of our Ambassador wasn't about "a movie" afterall, huh.
Of course now the Obama administration is back peddling from their comments about the attacks being "all about the video" and poor Susan Rice must feel like an idiot patsy for going around all the Sun morning talk shows last weekend lying to the American people on behalf of Obama and his failure of a foreign policy.
These arrogant leftists and their partners in the media are disgusting.
But, trying to hide the truth is what they do (and as I've always said, it's how they get elected).

LOL! The first thing out of Mittens mouth after the attack was a LIE! Why aren't you calling him out? Arrogance?
Does Romney even have a foreign policy? Oh yeah... be strong!!!
"The unifying thread of his national security strategy is American strength. When America is strong, the world is safer. "

This is a good article if you need things "spelled out"http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/opinion/avlon-romney-libya-attack/index.html
"It is also noteworthy that the Romney campaign's instinct is to attack the president on foreign policy but then refuse to articulate its own policy positions as a useful point of contrast. This "attack and distract" approach to politics is beneath the office; when you criticize there is an obligation to propose new solutions to the problem."

Romney is using the philosophy of the GOP that a strong national defense makes diplomacy easier. Obama is allowing the defense spending to diminish as Carter did to an extreme and that always leads to diplomatic challenges.

The latest attacks on our embassies is an example of Obama's appeasement policy. They are not afraid to attack us because they think Obama will not react and he won't He still is saying it was am impulsive protest rather than an organized attack by terrorists. Wonder how the impulsive "protesters" had RPGs? It's called leading from behind. From the eight ball that is.

Terrorists are similar to criminals that seek opportunities. They look for the weak and those who cannot defend themselves. They are less likely to enter a home where the owners are known to gave weapons. A lone criminal will not engage a group or a protected group.